[HN Gopher] Intel is trucking a 916k-pound 'Super Load' across O...
___________________________________________________________________
Intel is trucking a 916k-pound 'Super Load' across Ohio to its new
fab
Author : prng2021
Score : 223 points
Date : 2024-06-12 13:45 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
| leetrout wrote:
| > 280 feet long, stretching longer than a football field
|
| Seems unclear to phrase it that way when talking a about the
| dimensions of the load and then comparing the entire transport
| apparatus length.
|
| Unsure how they jump from 280 being greater than 360.
| adolph wrote:
| Given that the author makes reference to the overall transport
| apparatus, the correctness of the length analogy also depends
| on if they refer to the "field of play" or the "entire field"
| or if the word "field" was edited from "pitch."
|
| _The rectangular field of play used for American football
| games measures 100 yards (91.44 m) long between the goal lines
| . . . . The entire field is a rectangle 360 feet (110 m) long.
| . ._ [0]
|
| _The pitch is rectangular in shape. . . . the longer sides are
| called the touchlines. . . . The two touchlines are between 100
| and 130 yards (91 and 119 metres) long . . ._ [1]
|
| 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_field
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_pitch
| kuu wrote:
| 85 meters
| coldpie wrote:
| It doesn't happen often, but I always enjoy when I spot oversize
| equipment making its way across the roads. Enormous construction
| equipment; wind turbine blades; partial buildings. The kind of
| stuff that requires multiple lanes, careful route planning, and
| lead & follow cars. Gives a little glimpse of the immense effort
| we put in to building, improving, and maintaining our society.
| whartung wrote:
| My wife didn't realize it at the time, but she got to see the
| Space Shuttles SRBs on the freeway as they were coming into LA
| for the Shuttle exhibit there.
|
| Searching for when they moved Endeavor from LAX to the museum
| years ago is worthwhile. That was a tight fit on LA streets.
| throwup238 wrote:
| The California Science Center has a little projector room
| showing a timelapse of the Endeavor being delivered to its
| final resting spot, right before you get to the big room with
| the shuttle.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| One time when I was flying out of DC, I got to see a space
| shuttle on the airport tarmac. (I can't remember if it was
| mounted on a 747 or not.) A very cool surprise.
|
| This was probably in the 2009-2013 timeframe, IIRC.
| sib wrote:
| A friend of mine was the official photographer for the move
| of the Shuttle to the museum in LA.
|
| https://www.instagram.com/p/CjtJA0PPWm3/?img_index=1
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| It's actually smaller than I expected. It always appeared
| so much larger in the launch pictures.
| sib wrote:
| I agree - they've recently repositioned it vertically (as
| it would be launched). I was at the museum a few weeks
| ago and it is definitely smaller than you'd think.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The fact it could ride piggyback on a 747 shows either
| how small the shuttle was or how big a 747 is. Either
| way, it was cool to see
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I wish it were feasible to occasionally take it out for a
| parade again. What a lovely moment that was.
| adolph wrote:
| I wonder if: * there are oversized load
| spotters like those folks with a hobby of keeping track of
| aircraft or trains? * there is economic intelligence
| value in extracting and surfacing data from oversize load
| permits?
| elil17 wrote:
| I'd guess that there's not a lot of stock trading value in
| tracking oversize load permits. I think most publicly traded
| companies announce large capital investments like new
| factories long before trucks hit the road.
| adolph wrote:
| Maybe so. I'm aware of satellites used to measure oil tank
| utilization [0], so sometimes odd information is
| informative for a specific trading strategy even if it is
| not useful in general.
|
| 0. https://medium.com/planet-stories/a-beginners-guide-to-
| calcu...
| Arrath wrote:
| For the 2nd, perhaps in identifying critical routes which may
| be worth an extra bit of infrastructure funding for upkeep to
| allow such important loads to continue to transit without
| issue.
|
| Then again, the need for permitting should mean that state
| DOT's are already aware.
| woodrowbarlow wrote:
| driving the follow car seems like an interesting job. they have
| to predict drivers and strategically position themself to
| redirect the herd. a diesel sheepdog.
| hansvm wrote:
| Most jobs are probably super interesting for a month or
| three. Even the simplest of jobs assume you won't be
| productive immediately, which implies there's probably
| something fun to learn.
|
| I used to do a number of those odd tasks (jackhammering down
| bank safes in preparation for the new tenants, ordinary pizza
| delivery, engineering a track for people to ramp/jump their
| mid-90s shit-mobiles, ...). I'm in tech as an ML engineer or
| something now, but one of these years I think it'd be a ton
| of fun to sit down and intentionally experience a hundred or
| so jobs and get a feel for what other people do for their
| livelihoods -- ideally in many distinct locales (e.g., where
| I grew up it was common for people to rent/(buy-with-intent-
| to-resell) a gas-powered bandsaw mill and produce most of the
| raw materials for their house, partly because land was cheap,
| partly because wages were piss-poor, and partly because there
| was a strong "make-do" attitude where people were willing to
| work hard to make a nice life with whatever hand they were
| given -- the sorts of jobs you'll have access to there are
| very different than those even a few hours away, much less a
| few states or countries).
|
| That was a bit of a minor rant. I'm in strong agreement
| though; that sounds like a super interesting job.
| bluGill wrote:
| Typically they have radios and so the truck asks the
| following driver to do something.
| therouwboat wrote:
| I remember one wind turbine blade transport in small country
| roads in Finland, first car was basically driving on oncoming
| traffic side and forced me to go as close to ditch as possible,
| but it was good because the truck and trailer barely fit past
| my car.
| xattt wrote:
| Prince Edward Island is connected to the mainland with a two-
| lane 13.6 km bridge. There are designated times over the course
| of the day when the bridge is closed to traffic and oversized
| loads are transferred across.
|
| Several deliveries are usually staged one after the other, so
| you get to see a variety of loads if you are unlucky enough to
| have to wait for 30-40 minutes. Most of the time, it's pre-fab
| buildings and nothing too exciting.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Being on an island, it seems like loading it on a barge would
| be more efficient.
| Damogran6 wrote:
| 'loading it on a barge' doing a lot of heavy liftin there.
| (heh)
| jamesfmilne wrote:
| Does it have a harbour with sufficient cranes to offload
| it, and a good enough road to transport it out?
|
| And if you're going to need 4 trucks to get it out of the
| port anyway, might as well just drive it there.
|
| Sorry, no idea why I'm debating some random person on the
| internet about an issue which has absolutely no impact on
| me whatsoever. Sport, I guess.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| It's a pretty big governance fail to have a single point
| of failure for access to an island.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| more of a cost vs benefit tradeoff than a failure. It
| could also be just a SPOF for over-sized loads, whereas
| people have multiple routes on/off island.
| xattt wrote:
| There is redundancy in the form of a 90 minute Ro-Ro
| ferry route to the east, as well as mothballed docks near
| the bridge in case of an incident that closes the bridge
| completely. I'm not sure about the capacity for oversized
| loads on the ferry, but it's often used by trucks to
| carry gravel and aggregate for construction.
| xattt wrote:
| There really isn't a properly craned port per se. The
| transit time would be just as long, if not longer if it
| was crossed by barge.
| Loughla wrote:
| During covid shutdown a massive piece of industrial machinery
| was transported down our rural highway. It had like 10 lead and
| chase cars and a dozen state police. The actual item had 4
| semis with 2 pushing and 2 pulling.
|
| I still have no idea what it was, but it added some excitement
| to a very mundane April that year. I have to imagine it was a
| very opportunistic move, since most traffic was stopped for
| covid already.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| If it wasn't obviously a wind turbine blade (or a rocket!),
| maybe it was a petroleum distillation column? Those are a
| common extra-oversized highway load.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| accident involving one in the news recently.
| impatient/distracted driver crashed into the transport
| truck.
|
| https://www.tdtnews.com/news/business/article_c49e80c8-124b
| -....
| fathyb wrote:
| Link for Europe: https://archive.ph/IHdjm
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Careful with that website. I am trying to access it from
| EU.
|
| "We recognize you are attempting to access this website
| from a country belonging to the European Economic Area
| (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data
| Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot
| be granted at this time. For any issues, contact
| webadmin@tdtnews.com or call 254-778-4444."
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| oh interesting. well if someone wants to learn more via a
| search engine could use terms distillation column crash
| and:
|
| > The incident occurred at about 11:20 a.m. April 27 on
| State Highway 36 near State Highway 317 in West Temple.
| rat87 wrote:
| That's not a sign of anything malicious.
|
| GDPR is just a pain in the ass to implement properly, for
| some US websites it's just much easier to ban people from
| the EU from accessing it then risk the potentially
| massive fines
| DEADMINCE wrote:
| Exactly this. I've seen many EU folk assume if a site
| doesn't bother with GDPR it _must_ be malicious. When
| really it 's just easier to avoid the EU since they
| decided they think their laws can apply worldwide.
| flemhans wrote:
| I'm from Europe and never think of GDPR helping anything
| much, just annoyance. I can understand why other
| countries won't bother.
|
| What happens btw if an American company just ignores GDPR
| but still welcomes European visitors? Why would they care
| about EU law?
| DEADMINCE wrote:
| > What happens btw if an American company just ignores
| GDPR but still welcomes European visitors? Why would they
| care about EU law?
|
| EU claims EU law applies to US sites if a EU citizen
| visits it. This has yet to be tested in court though. I'm
| incredibly skeptical that it can be enforced.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| If the American company doesn't sell things to European
| customers I don't think GDPR even applies.
| DEADMINCE wrote:
| There's not really too much need for caution; they are
| just saying the GDPR doesn't apply to them and they would
| rather not deal with any issues. I do the same thing with
| many sites I manage, it's significantly less potential
| hassle.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| This happens semi-regularly with links posted on HN. I
| always read it only as US websites who don't give a crap
| about the only domain where the EU is leading: countless
| regulation.
|
| They just don't want to bother with the PITA that the
| GDPR is and just give that failing continent that my EU
| is the middle finger.
|
| I think it's totally justified.
| nvahalik wrote:
| Oh yeah I remember that! My wife had to turn around and
| iirc that road was closed at least 2 days.
| sadhorse wrote:
| Sadly you can't get a glimpse on the immense effort we put into
| destroying our society. But the nunbers are available if you
| are curious enough.
| wishfish wrote:
| For anyone interested in simulating such a drive, American
| Truck Simulator and Euro Truck Simulator both have DLC
| ("Special Transport") with trucks pulling massive payloads.
| Lead & follow vehicles. Plus a police escort. Mostly fun and a
| little frustrating. The latter due to not-always-great AI on
| the lead vehicles / police escorts
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| It's definitely mind-boggling to me too.
|
| I do hope Radia gets their WindRunner plane off the ground.
| It's designed for onshore wind renewable energy, to be a plane
| with colossal internal volume. But it's also designed to work
| on landing strips that are much shorter & crucially primitive
| iirc or at least much more basic, to radically expand access to
| where we might setup wind power.
|
| I have high confidence such a plane would most likely end up
| being used for other tasks too, if created. Maybe it's not as
| absurdly expensive as I imagine, planning & coordinating these
| intense logistics routes, but being able to airship things to
| interesting destinations seems super compelling to me, seems
| like it could enable a lot of infrastructure development that's
| simplify infeasible right now.
|
| Marching into fancifulness here, but with something as big as a
| fab, I could definitely picture an initial construction phase
| where a sizable fraction of the land is dedicated as runway to
| start, isn't developed, while big items are flown in. Sounds
| wild, but could be possible! The model Radia has is off-site
| construction, and it's not too too hard to imagine perhaps more
| than wind turbines might benefit from this model: maybe not
| just coolers and fabs, but perhaps even prefab building walls
| could benefit from this.
|
| https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/how-the-worlds-bigge...
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39690182
|
| Maybe it's infeasible, but I could imagine something as large
| as a fab being able to
| stuff4ben wrote:
| why would you not build that stuff onsite?
| ethagknight wrote:
| The short answer is probably that the government is throwing so
| much money at this, and it's usually an uncapped direct
| government expense to do offsite utility work like this for
| these kinds of major projects. Compare to making it an "onsite
| expense" which will have a dollar cap.
| 01acheru wrote:
| IMHO because it's not something trivial to build so you would
| also need to build the stuff to build it. To build complex (and
| huge) machinery you need specialized factories with lots of
| other big and complex machinery, you cannot just create a
| factory to build n=1 objects it's not economically viable.
| bunderbunder wrote:
| Though, perhaps they meant "assemble".
|
| A lot of other big things, like wind turbines, are shipped in
| smaller pieces and assembled onsite. At least according to a
| family member of mine who works on them, you even get
| slightly different designs that are specifically tailored to
| the local highway transport regulations in different
| countries.
|
| That said, I think in general you're right that the story is
| that it's just cheaper to do it this way. I just think that
| assuming you'd need to build actual factories is a bit
| drastic. But perhaps even getting the equipment needed for
| final assembly onsite is prohibitively expensive compared to
| just transporting the fully-assembled equipment.
| 01acheru wrote:
| Well if they mean assemble instead of build the things
| change a bit, but anyway even when talking about big and
| complex things there are big and complex things that can be
| "easily" split into pieces and assembled at a later time
| and other things that cannot be split so easily so much
| more resources are needed to assemble the thing in its
| final form.
|
| Just guesses it's not something I'm into.
| jjice wrote:
| Tangential, but what's the state of semiconductor fabs in the US?
| Looking at this Wikipedia article [0], there are quite a lot.
| That said, all but three (assuming I counted correctly) are
| pre-2020. Is the push for fabs in the US specifically to have
| modern, sophisticated fabs?
|
| My initial understanding of needing more fabs in the US was
| mainly for embedded stuff like for military, automobiles, and
| that kind of thing. Is this push actually more so for higher end
| fabrication for modern non-embedded use?
|
| Whatever the case is, having some more domestic production
| (especially for something as valuable as microprocessors) seems
| like a big win for any nation. I'm looking forward to seeing how
| the US does with chip fabrication. I don't expect them (us?) to
| become the dominant player, but I am bullish on US chip
| production.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricat...
| dfxm12 wrote:
| You can find context for the recent push here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
| jjice wrote:
| Thank you, this is exactly what I needed!
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Being able to produce state of the art semiconductors is
| arguably the most important manufacturing ability for a country
| to have. The US does not want to be dependent on Taiwan or
| South Korea to build what is nowadays a cornerstone economic
| driver (compute) and cornerstone defense tool (compute).
|
| So to put it simply; the US wants to be sure it can still make
| H100's even if the rest of the world goes to shit.
| krisoft wrote:
| > Being able to produce state of the art semiconductors is
| arguably the most important manufacturing ability for a
| country to have.
|
| I don't think that is quite right. It is a very important
| ability. I don't think it is the "most important" ability. If
| you have semiconductor fabs but not dry docks to build
| capital ships you will be in for a world of hurt. If you have
| semiconductor fabs but not agriculture to feed your people
| you will be in a world of hurt. If you have semiconductor
| fabs but not the ability to cast solid-fuelled rocket engines
| for your missiles you will be in a world of hurt.
|
| It is one of the many important abilities. The reason we are
| talking about it is not because it is the "most important",
| but because it is at danger of being lost. We don't talk
| about the other equally very important abilities (like dry
| docks for giant ships, agriculture to feed the nation, or
| solid fuel casting, or a myriad of other things) because
| nobody worries about those going away.
| ivalm wrote:
| I am not sure capital ships are as critical now. With
| drones/hypersonics it seems they are too vulnerable for use
| in any peer conflict. Pretty sure if China/US were to wage
| war in 5 years then all the capital ships from both sides
| in the conflict zone will be scrap within 24 hours. Send
| 100 hypersonics per ship and one will hit.
| buildbot wrote:
| The parents point is more that for a functioning state,
| you need all of those things. If one of those things is
| at risk externally, bringing that one internal first
| makes sense.
|
| Carriers are still very important to US force projection
| and hypersonic missiles are really overblown. We also
| seem to be readily able to take out existing hypersonic
| ballistics.
|
| Also a 5 year war with the US and China that starts with
| a multiple thousands of missles? That's just going to be
| a nuclear exchange and last not very long at all if one
| sides detects any launch like that.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| We'll see how the SinkEx on the ex-USS Tawara goes at
| RimPac 2024.
|
| I'd be surprised if they don't use some ASBMs.
|
| But larger ships are built to take an incredible amount
| of punishment. It typically takes a heavyweight torpedo
| to crack them (hence why ASW is a primary skill set for
| navies). The physics of getting a 1/4 ton+ non-nuclear
| warhead (torpedo class) highly maneuvering are rough.
|
| And there's a reason the Navy developed and deployed
| SM-6, and is now adding SEWIP Block III...
|
| https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=rimpac+sinkex
| generic92034 wrote:
| Just recently a major ship was sunk, though:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva
|
| Did they make mistakes?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Are you asking if the underfunded Russian military made
| mistakes in manning a ship, building a ship, designing a
| ship? Surely, it was meant to be rhetorical
| bee_rider wrote:
| Technically, the Russian military didn't make any
| mistakes in designing or building that ship since it was
| inherited from the Soviet Union. Although make the
| mistake was having it still in operation...
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Still having a conscript-based navy?
|
| Loading their capital ships decks with exposed, extremely
| large anti-ship missiles?
|
| And they likely still would have been able to tow it back
| to port, if the weather hasn't been bad.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > Send 100 hypersonics per ship and one will hit.
|
| What about all of those submerged ships that will lay
| waste to their opponent with the weapons they carry?
| ivalm wrote:
| Sure, subs also have a place. I'm just saying that
| conventional warfare with high tech weapons favors
| resource decentralization. Right now things are easier to
| blow up than defend.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Arguably the most important, not the most important. You
| can make a strong argument for why it is, is all that I am
| saying.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Tha vast majority of military chip requirements can be met
| with old processes. You don't need a 5nm chip with a 13
| billion transistors in a F-35 or for the guidance module in a
| cruise missile.
|
| Very modern chips are more suited for intelligence work no
| weapons systems per se. The physics of flight, artillery and
| balistic missiles is pretty much well understood, we don't
| need machine learning for that. Some modern systems use
| computer vision as a terminal guidance system, but again, you
| don't need state of art semis for that.
| yyhhsj0521 wrote:
| I'm not a military expert by any means, but I imagine 5nm
| chips/ML are immensely useful in designing F-35 and cruise
| missiles.
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| For CDF (Computational Fluid Dynamics) yes, but ML not so
| much. This is a relatively new technology and this sector
| is slow to change.
|
| Add in the fact of the black box nature of ML, and it
| becomes a pain to anything that requires a certification.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The defense department is far larger than missiles and
| planes.
|
| Also nuclear weapons simulation is what keeps the DoE
| continuously buying new world leading super computers.
| vel0city wrote:
| Even from a designing a chip for ordinance perspective,
| there's a lot of meat on the bone to make chips just that
| much more accurate and that much less susceptible to
| interference. And making those more and more reliable,
| cheaper, and smaller is also a big deal.
|
| Stuff like this wasn't realistic from systems made in the
| 90s or even 00's.
|
| https://youtu.be/vY9rJBL1S2Y?si=Dq1QJp90Up6UKLaQ
| vel0city wrote:
| Sometimes the fab location might be older but the fab itself
| might have gone through much retooling throughout the years. I
| doubt the TI fabs in Sherman and Dallas in 1965/1966 are
| running all the same equipment as back then.
|
| There are a lot of interesting fabs in the US making some
| pretty bleeding edge products, but often not digital
| microprocessor chips. A lot of the more bleeding edge are
| analog/RF kind of stuff, especially GaN and GaAs stuff.
| brewdad wrote:
| A modern fab is basically a super, super clean warehouse. The
| equipment and layout can easily be changed up for a new
| generation of products.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Something I think I should have better understanding of:
|
| My impression is that automotive and military applications
| mostly use older, more mature, cheaper modes. Are the fabs for
| these older nodes mostly re-purposes formerly cutting edge
| fabs, or do they go around building brand new (higher volume?)
| fabs for these nodes?
|
| I guess I'm wondering if the capacity to build automotive chips
| in 10 years will be limited by the ability to build cutting-
| edge chips nowadays. Or maybe if TI (or whoever) can, like,
| borrow a couple near-retirement TSMC guys in a couple years and
| spin up some brand new old-tech fabs.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| It depends on the application. Some use an unconventional
| process because of application requirements e.g. radiation
| hardening. Special purpose fabs are often subsidized to some
| extent to keep them running. Also, the US military will
| upgrade the silicon of existing systems if the situation
| warrants it e.g. it is cheaper to use more modern silicon
| than to maintain a fab for the old silicon.
|
| Most weapon systems use old silicon that needs to be robust
| in all military operational environments. They don't benefit
| from having more modern silicon. Terminal guidance systems on
| hypersonic missiles that do kinetic intercept of other
| hypersonic missiles often use something like a MIPS
| R3000/4000 class CPU and a DSP of similar vintage.
|
| ISR systems (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance)
| benefit from state-of-the-art silicon because that data is
| extremely large and analysis is time sensitive. Since
| pervasive ISR at scale is a cornerstone of modern military
| operations, having the best silicon and software for this
| type of computation is strategic. In these cases, it is often
| the latest commodity silicon.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Since we're talking about chip fabs as strategic military
| assets, I'm curious how vulnerable they are to sabotage.
|
| E.g., how difficult would it be for a nation state to damage
| one in a way that requires a major replacement part from ASML,
| with long lead time?
|
| And with or without it clearly being an intentional act of
| sabotage?
| briffle wrote:
| Intel is costantly modernizing one of its fabs in PDX. From
| what I have heard from a neighbor working at it, Intel brings
| most new equipment here, uses it for a certain time, then
| packages it up and ships to Arizona, so they don't have to pay
| sales tax on it, since its now used...
| brewdad wrote:
| Intel gets a sweet break on property taxes too, basically
| paying a flat fee per year. Otherwise, they could never
| afford the taxes on $20-40 billion of equipment in a single
| fab. The state makes up for it by taxing 20,000 well paid
| employees at a 10% income tax rate.
| unregistereddev wrote:
| Intel has older fabs on that list - including one that was
| built in 2003 - that are capable of 7nm production processes.
| Some of the older domestic plants have been significantly
| updated over the years.
| burnte wrote:
| It's mostly about having enough capacity so if China goes nuts
| and takes over Taiwan the world isn't held hostage.
| soared wrote:
| > Bruning shared that other companies are piggybacking on the
| super load route plans now that accommodations have already been
| made
|
| I would've thought the ability to do a super load or not
| determined a lot of your mfg/etc process. Seems surprising a
| company could switch over to a super load because it's now
| available.
| gehwartzen wrote:
| Makes sense though if the route is already getting prepped for
| one load. It's a huge amount of work from logistical and
| coordinating effort (trains getting re-routed, hazmats cleared,
| roads shut down, etc) to get the route setup. May as well send
| any other extremely large shipments along while it's cleared.
|
| Lots of companies have huge pieces of equipment sitting at
| factory X that they would rather have at factory Y for example.
| crote wrote:
| There are plenty of applications where a single load would be
| more convenient for one way or another, but it's _possible_ to
| do it in multiple loads with a final assembly step at the
| destination.
|
| Nobody is going to spend months of planning and many millions
| of dollars on alterations to save a few grand on a one-off
| project. But hey, if someone else has already done the planning
| and alterations, why not piggyback off of that and save
| yourself some money?
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| I grew up less than half an hour away from the fab site. Back
| then, if you told me that this would happen, I wouldn't believe
| you.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| This may seem like a weird question but I wonder how much it is
| worth? Presumably it's very expensive and precise equipment. I
| wonder if it's protected from gunfire in transit.
| mhb wrote:
| Gunfire is the threat that comes to mind? Weird.
| bunderbunder wrote:
| I can totally see someone taking a potshot at it just for a
| lark. Heck, I can see someone doing it for the purpose of
| creating content for their TikTok or YouTube channel.
|
| It's not like something like that has never happened before:
| https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-barbara-county-
| ma...
| reaperman wrote:
| Most of the large petrochemical tanks on the Gulf Coast
| have bullet dings in them. Folks just like to take potshots
| at stuff. Luckily the steel of these tanks are already more
| than thick enough to handle most small-arms fire. They just
| take the damage into account when they do corrosion
| monitoring every few years (those impact spots tend to be
| thinner afterwards, of course).
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Have you been thru rural Ohio?
| ls65536 wrote:
| It has happened before with other kinds of large cargo (the
| type that you really wouldn't want to have undesired holes
| in): https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=276419
| pjc50 wrote:
| I'd heard about this, and wondered how America squares it
| with its ridiculously large and expensive War on Terror.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| It should be pretty clear after a two decades that it is
| a war on islam aligned unfriendly governments.
|
| The US largely doesn't take internal Christian terror
| seriously.
|
| And we certainly don't take rural whites acting
| recklessly with guns to be anything but the free
| expression of inalienable rights.
| vundercind wrote:
| Ever seen a stop sign in rural America?
|
| Quite a few folks like shooting stuff and have very poor
| judgement.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I've heard tales that Boeing's transporting of fuselages
| rarely made it to the destination without bullet holes.
| dr_orpheus wrote:
| > I wonder if it's protected from gunfire in transit
|
| I would guess that it isn't. My assumption (without any data
| backing this up) is that making a specific, super rugged
| transport container would cost more (along with the additional
| logistics of it) than the insurance on it.
| bob1029 wrote:
| I don't know that the entire volume is considered "precise".
| Most of it should be cryogenic equipment (compressors, pipes,
| etc), packed in some kind of insulation. If anti-material
| rounds did penetrate the load, on-site repairs might be
| feasible. Contrast this with something like an EUV tool, which
| would probably be instant scrap if this kind of attack were
| successful.
| teitoklien wrote:
| most definitely protected, and very expensive insurance too.
|
| > gunfire in transit
|
| Not just gunfire, they need to protect it from
|
| - Climate Activists, blocking road and sabotaging the
| instrument, like they destroy old paintings at museums and art
| galleries to bring awareness via headlines [1]
|
| - Foreign Adversary Intentionally Sabotaging Equipment to
| prevent America from leading in Semiconductor ( Had happened to
| India's SCL silicon lab when they were catching up with market
| in 1980s ) [2]
|
| - And ofcourse Gun Slingers too
|
| [1](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/famo
| u...)
|
| [2](https://youtu.be/isBYV6QWDIo?si=_g_0uYoXqiekhh9n)
| swores wrote:
| > _- Climate Activists, blocking road and sabotaging the
| instrument, like they destroy old paintings at museums and
| art galleries to bring awareness via headlines [1]_
|
| Saying they "destroyed" any paintings is plain wrong, you've
| either not read past the headline or you're deliberately
| trying to make climate protesters look bad.
|
| While I'm aware of many art/museum related climate protests,
| I haven't heard of a single one that damaged any art - all of
| them, like the example you linked to, the protestors chose
| targets where they could avoid doing any real harm. In the
| story you linked they threw paint over a glass case that
| protects the painting, not over the painting itself.
|
| So it definitely wouldn't surprise me if climate protestors
| decided to delay the trip by temporarily blocking a road, but
| it would be extremely surprising if they did anything worse
| than splashing paint on something that does no harm other
| than needing a cleaning crew to get it off.
| sib wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/07/arts/design/rokeby-
| venus-...
| DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68515368
| swores wrote:
| The other comment, from sib, already shows that there is
| an example I'd missed of a climate protest leading to a
| piece of art getting damaged - albeit in a minor way (and
| I think sounds like it was accidental too, that they were
| again aiming to damage the case not the painting itself -
| otherwise they would have done more than light scratching
| / would've picked a painting without that type of strong
| case).
|
| But your link isn't about climate protestors at all, and
| it's barely even about art - the painting those people
| targeted wasn't picked for being a well known and well
| liked picture, but because of the politics 100 years ago
| of the person in the painting.
|
| Quite a different situation, and entirely different
| reason for protest.
| aftbit wrote:
| Almost certainly no. Probably not protected from meteor hits or
| car crashes either.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The 10mph travel speed under heavy escort seems like car
| crashes wouldn't be fatal.
| aftbit wrote:
| The Dali hit the Key Bridge at under 10 mph.
|
| The kinetic energy of a 415000 kg object going 4.5 m/s is
| about equivalent to a 2000 kg object going 65 m/s = 145
| mph.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Something that big in water trying to stop vs something
| on the ground with lots of friction contact with the
| ground is two entirely different things.
|
| I'm way less concerned about this thing hitting something
| moving at 10mph than I am someone else driving their
| thing into this bigger thing. It would have to be a
| massive thing to budge it.
| galdosdi wrote:
| What? It's self protecting. How is a thief going to fence a
| million pounds of heavy equipment, and get away from a convoy
| of dozens of people?
|
| As soon as they turn onto some smaller road they're going to
| run into power lines. If it's so expensive for Intel/Ohio DOT
| to move it, it's not gonna be any easier or cheaper for a
| thief.
|
| This is like, what if someone stole the copper wiring from the
| white house
|
| Fun to think about though. Fun weird question.
| swores wrote:
| The comment you replied to was talking about risk of people
| damaging it, not running off with it.
|
| And using your white house example, while I'm sure people
| stealing copper cabling from it isn't considered a high risk,
| the possibility of people using guns to shoot at the white
| house certainly is something they take quite seriously!
| dylan604 wrote:
| I think you just gave Netflix Studios their next heist
| movie/series.
| j_walter wrote:
| I would guess based on their description this is not expensive
| or precise...at least compared to the cleanroom tooling like an
| EUV tool. This is probably a gas tower that is used to produce
| high purity gas on site (like N2). They are large and often
| transported from where they are built. TSMC AZ had one
| delivered from Texas a few years ago (or more precisely Linde
| had it delivered to their site next door to TSMC AZ). You can
| see the large towers in the pictures linked below.
|
| https://www.phxind.com/projects/linde-spectra-30
| secondcoming wrote:
| 916k lbs = 415k kg
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 450Mg! Poor megagram never gets any love!
| Alghranokk wrote:
| Which to be even clearer is 415 metric tons.
|
| For context: typical max weight for a truck in the US of A is
| 80k lbs, or a bit over 36 metric tons.
| PaywallBuster wrote:
| > Big rigs are limited by federal regulation to a maximum
| loaded weight of 80,000 pounds including cargo
|
| over 10x heavier than the maximum allowed by law
| bowsamic wrote:
| It's split up into 18 separate loads
| npongratz wrote:
| > _It 's split up into 18 separate loads_
|
| TFA suggests it's not split up:
|
| > Intel will put a 916,000-pound "super load" on the road
| in Ohio on Wednesday, for a trip that will cover
| approximately 150 miles in nine days and snarl traffic for
| over a week...
|
| > Four of these loads, including the one hitting the road
| now, weigh around 900,000 pounds -- that's 400 metric tons,
| or 76 elephants.
|
| > Intel's 916,000-pound shipment is a "cold box,"...
|
| EDIT: Further information in the ODOT advisory detailing
| the schedule of this one shipment confirms 916k pounds is
| _not_ split among multiple loads:
|
| https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/about-us/traffic-
| advisor...
|
| > This is the twelfth of nearly two dozen "super loads"...
| This load... measures approximately 23' tall, 20' wide,
| 280' long, and weighs 916,000 pounds.
| swores wrote:
| If that were the case the story would just be "18 lorries
| are going to do a boring trip", and there wouldn't need to
| be any special plans made for road use at all.
| bowsamic wrote:
| Well you can ask them why they thought it was such an
| interesting story to post. But yes the article discussing
| the schedule in detail says it is split up across 18
| loads
| allannienhuis wrote:
| One of the individual loads was at this scale. There are
| multiple 'super loads'. The article doesn't say that a
| single 'super load' was split up into 18 parts.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Eddie Hall lifted 500kg. Trained for years. 415kg is a heavy
| beast.
| kayge wrote:
| It is heavy indeed, and unfortunately there weren't ~1000
| Eddie Halls available for this trip so they had to settle for
| trucks :)
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Eddie Hall lifted 500kg. Trained for years. 415kg is a heavy
| beast.
| notesinthefield wrote:
| For other Ohioans who were wondering about this : ODOT started
| talking about the shipping routes a couple weeks ago and contrary
| to the article, we do have a timetable here :
| https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/about-us/traffic-advisor...
|
| Im going between Cincinnati and Columbus several times over the
| next three weeks and am not looking forward to this even though
| it seems theyre taking a mostly out of the way route through the
| SE Ohio farming towns.
| TimMeade wrote:
| It's going within about 10 miles of my mothers house... Not
| sure she would care... But i'll tell her!
| Severian wrote:
| Oh god, 33 and Gender Road. That's not going to be pretty for
| traffic.
| jcranmer wrote:
| I've put together a rough map of the route it's taking here:
| https://maps.app.goo.gl/MPubWurLDu4XjMQJ7 (unfortunately, the
| limitations of Google Maps keeps me from properly marking the
| final bouncing between Mink Rd and 310--it continues east past
| Mink Rd to go up OH-310, then returns to Mink Rd on US-40 then
| returns to OH-310 on OH-16 then back to Mink Rd on OH-161. Not
| sure why it's not sticking to one or the other way the entire
| last stretch.)
|
| If you're going between Cincinnati and Columbus, you should be
| absolutely nowhere near this route, as it's going nowhere near
| I-71.
| Arrath wrote:
| > Not sure why it's not sticking to one or the other way the
| entire last stretch.
|
| Generally, low overpasses or turns that would be
| problematically tight.
|
| E: Checking street view, for example: that Mink Rd overpass
| over I-70 is likely either too narrow or not rated for the
| weight.
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9506421,-82.7300744,3a,75y,1.
| ..
| dylan604 wrote:
| Upon first look at the map, I thought it had to have loaded
| wrong to not see it starting at what I expected as a port
| city. From someone that grew up around rivers that can
| pretty much run dry during the summers, it's amazing to me
| that a river runs that wide/deep that far inland to a land
| locked area to be able to accommodate a ship of this size.
| jcranmer wrote:
| I couldn't find the exact port they're starting at, so I
| guessed a boat ramp just to put a pin somewhere. The only
| places near Manchester, OH I could find that looked like
| they had some kind of port facilities were what appeared
| to be a power plant, although per Wikipedia, the plant
| has been decommissioned, so it's possible that part of
| the site was reused for the offloading facility.
|
| The Ohio River is famously an easily navigable river;
| there's only one natural falls along the route from
| Pittsburgh (the confluence of the Allegheny and the
| Monongahela rivers) to Cairo (where it joins the
| Mississippi). It provides the plurality of the water to
| the Mississippi River, a little less than half of the
| total discharge. I don't know where you grew up, but the
| river is more comparable (in European terms) to the
| Rhine, Danube, Dnieper, Don, or Volga than something like
| the Thames or the Seine rivers.
| Arrath wrote:
| > so it's possible that part of the site was reused for
| the offloading facility.
|
| Quite likely, there's a fair chance that large items for
| the power plant (like the steam turbines) were brought in
| by the river in the first place.
| briffle wrote:
| I guess i'm not sure why they would transport this in the
| middle of the day.
|
| Seems like starting at 8pm would mean less snarl, less traffic
| to deal with, etc.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| In my experience, that's the difference between southern and
| northern state DOTs.
|
| Southern states do their work from 8pm-midnight+.
|
| Northern states do it from 9am-5pm.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Southern states have temps >100deg so the night time work
| is also just for the survival of the workers. (only a
| slight exaggeration)
|
| Also, night time is dark. It makes things much more
| difficult than it needs to be at the convenience of some
| drivers in a car. Natural daylight is just so much better
| than having to have portable lights.
| immibis wrote:
| Southern states are the ones where it's illegal to give
| water to workers - I can't imagine they care very much
| about worker survival.
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| This is false, it is perfectly legal to give water to
| workers in the South (and in every other state).
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Parent is stretching a few bits of actual news to
| absurdity, for rhetorical effect.
|
| Conservative state governments battling liberal
| city/metro governments for power. E.g.
| https://apnews.com/article/texas-death-star-water-breaks-
| con...
|
| Some rather draconian "election reforms." E.g.
| https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/18/politics/georgia-election-
| law...
| brewdad wrote:
| Yes. Likely there are multiple points along this route
| where the vehicle will need to be aligned just so in
| order to safely make a turn or clear an obstacle. Far
| easier to do those maneuvers in daylight rather than risk
| compromising the cargo.
|
| It's road construction season in Ohio anyway so most
| drivers are going to face a significant delay along their
| journey regardless of when this load gets moved.
| o283j5o8j wrote:
| "The box is 23 feet tall, 20 feet wide, and 280 feet long,
| stretching longer than a football field."
|
| Author doesn't understand football.
| swores wrote:
| Either 280ft is longer than whatever type of football field
| they're thinking of, or it's not. No understanding of football
| needed for that.
|
| You haven't said what part of it you think is wrong - though I
| do believe that both American Football and Association Football
| (aka "soccer", or "real football" :P) do both play on pitches a
| bit longer than 280ft.
| neilv wrote:
| This is worth watching (2m41s): LA Times, "Space shuttle
| Endeavour's trek across LA: Timelapse"
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdqZyACCYZc&t=3s
| bell-cot wrote:
| > Intel's 916,000-pound shipment is a "cold box," a self-standing
| air-processor structure that facilitates the cryogenic technology
| needed to fabricate semiconductors. The box is 23 feet tall, 20
| feet wide, and 280 feet long...
|
| The weight gives Tom a big number for his headline - but 99% of
| the problem with this load is the _dimensions_ - which are too
| big for normal railroads. (Yes, the weight is also large enough
| to rule out using a heavy-lift helicopter.)
|
| Vs. a single 1940's-era steam locomotive+tender could weigh over
| 1,200,000 lbs. Modern locomotives - where electronic control
| makes it very easy, flexible, and wage-saving to operate 'em in
| sets - generally weigh a bit over 400,000 lbs. per.
| black6 wrote:
| Too long for even the largest Schnabel car in the US (maybe
| worldwide.)
| bell-cot wrote:
| Given the height and width (23' and 20'), I suspect the
| length doesn't matter much. Customizing a Schnabel car is
| plausible. Raising overpasses, widening tunnels, etc...not so
| plausible.
| giarc wrote:
| "and 280 feet long"
|
| Is that an error?
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Don't think so. The article emphasizes that it's nearly as
| long as a football field. So, if it's an error then it's with
| their source.
| knodi123 wrote:
| Huh. I usually push against the use of american-style
| weirdo units to describe things, but I guess one benefit is
| that if you specify multiple different units, you get
| automatic protection against typos!
| hermitdev wrote:
| At least when Americans say a football field length, it's
| a precise number: 100 yds. Not so with soccer fields...
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Yeah, I would not classify 78% of a football field (120
| yards or 360 feet) as nearly.
| a1o wrote:
| The website posted has the picture not corresponding to the
| actual load.
|
| Check the picture here:
| https://www.truckersnews.com/news/article/15677391/expect-
| de...
|
| It appears to indeed be 280 feet long.
| c_o_n_v_e_x wrote:
| I'm guessing that is an air separation unit. An ASU takes
| ambient air from the atmosphere and separates it into its
| constituent components like O2, N2, argon, etc.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Does anyone know why Intel select Ohio over Oregon or Arizona? I
| tried to Google for it, but the sources are awful and nothing
| definitive. Intel has been quite tight-lipped about it. I saw
| this quote, which seems to be hiding something: <<"I want to give
| a lot of credit to the governor and lieutenant governor. They
| pursued us very aggressively," he [Intel CEO Gelsinger] said.>>
| What exactly is meant by "pursued us very aggressively"? I can
| only guess.
| mindcrime wrote:
| > What exactly is meant by "pursued us very aggressively"?
|
| You can pretty much bet it means "economic development"
| incentives of some sort, combined with a fair amount of
| personal glad-handing. Intel probably got all sorts of tax-
| breaks, credits, grants, and FSM-knows what-else as part of the
| deal to pick Ohio. And the Governor and others probably took
| Intel execs to plenty of nice steak-houses, strip-joints,
| exclusive parties, yadda, yadda, yadda.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I hope Pat Gelsinger has more integrity than that, but who
| knows.
| justin66 wrote:
| You could have a pretty bleak outlook on government-
| corporate graft and corruption and still recognize how
| ridiculous the idea of Mike DeWine and Pat Gelsinger in a
| strip club is.
| tonetegeatinst wrote:
| Perhaps they were bribed using high purity sand or the
| governor "gifted" some high purity silicon ingots?
|
| Unrealistic but it would be histerical to imagine sand or
| ingot bribery
| mindcrime wrote:
| _still recognize how ridiculous the idea of Mike DeWine
| and Pat Gelsinger in a strip club is._
|
| I'm not literally claiming that we can state with
| certainty that Mike DeWine or Pat Gelsinger went to a
| strip club. That's just an example to illustrate a more
| general point.
| justin66 wrote:
| I don't think you really illustrated anything. (but don't
| get me wrong, the image Mike DeWine and Pat Gelsinger in
| a strip club is _extremely funny_ ) Ohio politicians are
| rather more expensive than your comment implies.
|
| If one wants to dig into how actual corruption of this
| sort works in Ohio during its current GOP supermajority
| era, they ought to start here:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scanda
| l
| istjohn wrote:
| Well Gov. Mike Dewine and the Ohio Republican lawmakers
| aren't above a little graft:
|
| > The Ohio nuclear bribery scandal (2020) is a political
| scandal in Ohio involving allegations that electric utility
| company FirstEnergy paid roughly $60 million to Generation
| Now, a 501(c)(4) organization purportedly controlled by
| Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives Larry
| Householder in exchange for passing a $1.3 billion bailout
| for the nuclear power operator.
|
| ...
|
| > In July 2019, the House passed House Bill 6, which
| increased electricity rates and provided that money as a
| $150 million per year subsidy for the Perry and Davis-Besse
| nuclear plants, subsidized coal-fired power plants, and
| reduced subsidies for renewable energy and energy
| efficiency. Governor Mike DeWine signed the bill the day it
| passed.[0]
|
| 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_sca
| ndal
| osnium123 wrote:
| Intel is also expanding in Arizona and Oregon. The benefit of
| going to a third state is that you get two more Senators
| rooting for you and helping out with tax breaks. In addition,
| there are a lot of course excellent universities in the region
| to recruit from. Ohio also has water and is seismically stable.
| bsder wrote:
| AFRL is also nearby in Ohio.
| gostsamo wrote:
| Tax incentives, usually. Add to it government cooperation
| through sped up permits and the like.
| bregma wrote:
| What happens on the back 9 stays on the back 9, I'm afraid.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Oregon has gotten a little pricy lately, right?
|
| I wonder if Ohio is in a sweet spot--low property values but
| still not far from the Megalopolis in the grand scheme of
| things.
| snypher wrote:
| Oregon is relatively close to the Pacific coast...
| hindsightbias wrote:
| "The state government is providing incentives in three chunks:
| a $600 million reshoring grant that reflects the higher cost of
| building these factories in America; $691 million in
| infrastructure improvements; and $650 million over 30 years in
| state income tax incentives based on the number of workers
| Intel hires."
|
| Plus 15 congressmen, 2 senators are going to want their part of
| the Federal rain money.
|
| https://www.dispatch.com/story/business/manufacturing/2024/0...
| mikey_p wrote:
| This area of Ohio has been exploding lately, and within a few
| miles of the Intel site, are AWS, Google and Meta data centers.
| Microsoft just bought 200 acres within a stones throw of the
| new Intel campus as well, possibly for an Azure DC. Not sure
| how all that relates, but it sure is messing with housing
| prices in the area.
|
| https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/microsoft-buys-20...
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| No water in Arizona, Oregon has the ocean
| Remmy wrote:
| They've all passed through my town. They coordinated it all with
| our local sheriff's office and sent out notifications well in
| advance so people would know to take alternate routes.
| chrsw wrote:
| Am I way out of line to assume TSMC will be well past the
| capability of this fab when in finally comes on line? Not when
| the current schedule says it will be ready but when the first
| actual production wafer comes out of the factory.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Perhaps, though fab advancements everywhere have slowed to a
| crawl. TSMC might not be significantly more advanced than what
| it is today when this fab comes online.
|
| I believe we are rapidly approaching the end of
| miniaturization. Even now, node sizes are mostly fabricated
| just to keep advertising smaller numbers.
| chrsw wrote:
| The end of miniaturization I can believe. But the end of
| performance, I'm not so sure.
| cogman10 wrote:
| I agree, there's definitely more percentages to gain and
| possibly even new fab techniques that can result in more
| densely packed chips using less power.
|
| However, those will (likely) be exploitable regardless of
| when the fab was built. The limiting factor isn't likely
| going to be the fab equipment so much as the techniques
| used.
|
| That's where I don't know that bigger better fabs is going
| to be the arms race that it has traditionally been.
| bitwize wrote:
| > Am I way out of line to assume TSMC will be well past the
| capability of this fab when in finally comes on line?
|
| Maybe, but Apple will own all of that advanced capacity. Those
| of us who have not bought into the Apple ecosystem will have to
| slum it with lesser chip processes, which this fab will help
| with the demand for.
| JasserInicide wrote:
| With semiconductor manufacturing being overseas (where lower
| wages are) for much of the past decades, how will Intel/TSMC
| opening up locations in the US affect prices? I imagine this just
| means everything will just get more expensive.
| zaphod12 wrote:
| semiconductor manufacturing is highly skilled - ie the folks
| over seas were already well paid. It was a lot more about
| approvals, permissions, etc, than wages with this manufacturing
| area. It shouldn't have a huge impact.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Although, in the US semiconductor companies have to compete
| for technical people against companies doing the apparently
| really economically productive stuff--coming up with ad
| algorithms and playing Wallstreet shell games.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| This seems like a super easy target for a foreign actor to
| sabotage and cause massive economic setback
| beeskneecaps wrote:
| Agreed, but I imagine the only setback is for the insurance
| company.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| An insurance company spreads losses, it does not make them
| disappear. From a country's economic point of view, the
| destruction of an economically productive thing is just as
| much of a loss, regardless of whether a single business and
| group of investors/shareholders experiences it, or if it is
| spread amongst various insurers, and hence their insureds via
| increased premiums in the future.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Nah. There are far easier targets with far larger economic
| impacts. This cold box certainly cost a lot of money, but it
| won't break the bank, just delay the fab construction.
|
| In fact, I could almost imagine that sabotaging this thing
| would actually have an economic boon as it would allow the
| roads to operate again (rather than shutting them down for days
| to move a 10mph mega fridge).
|
| Consider, for example, the economic damage of the camp fire
| wildfires. That was caused by a single downed power line.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >the economic damage of the camp fire wildfires. That was
| caused by a single downed power line.
|
| So why are they called camp fire wildfires if a camp fire was
| not the start of it?
| cogman10 wrote:
| Named after the road where it started, Camp Creek. But also
| named that way because "camp fire" is buzz worthy for media
| outlets.
| jancsika wrote:
| > 280 feet long
|
| There's no way the truck in the picture is hauling something 280
| feet long!
|
| The traffic behind it is closer than that!
| mminer237 wrote:
| Yeah, that photo is an older, separate very large load. They're
| trying to do a bunch of them back-to-back so they only have to
| figure out the logistics once. The 280' one hasn't left yet (or
| probably been loaded), but there's a picture of it on ODOT's
| site: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/about-us/traffic-
| advisor...
| jancsika wrote:
| Thanks for the link!
|
| Still-- there's no indication that anything in that image is
| 280 feet long!
|
| Maybe the container in the foreground is, but the part that's
| shown can't be more than 75 ft.
|
| It's like reading a story about a Wooly Mammoth being spotted
| in the wild, but people are only taking blurry pictures of
| its rear end. :/
| paulkrush wrote:
| Here's an image of the huge load:
| https://www.truckersnews.com/news/article/15677391/expect-de...
| 01acheru wrote:
| I hate Cloudflare internet... accessing a page from an
| iPhone...
|
| Sorry, you have been blocked You are unable to access
| parameter1.com
|
| Why have I been blocked? This website is using a security
| service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you
| just performed triggered the security solution. There are
| several actions that could trigger this block including
| submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed
| data.
|
| What can I do to resolve this? You can email the site owner to
| let them know you were blocked. Please include what you were
| doing when this page came up and the Cloudflare Ray ID found at
| the bottom of this page.
| mminer237 wrote:
| Here's a direct link on Ohio's website: https://www.transport
| ation.ohio.gov/wps/wcm/connect/gov/f618...
| bombela wrote:
| I get a 404.
|
| And I also get blocked on the cloudflare link for some
| reason.
| jtvjan wrote:
| Same. I suspect they're all blocked in the EU to avoid
| having to comply with GDPR. It's archived here, though:
| https://archive.today/D0fQZ
|
| The picture from Ohio's website too: https://web.archive.
| org/web/20240612173428/https://www.trans...
| deweller wrote:
| > ... and 280 feet long, stretching longer than a football field.
|
| Was this written by an AI? A football field is 360 feet long.
| ecshafer wrote:
| I could see a journalist that just gets confused between yards
| and feet writing that.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The unit itself if 280 feet long, but by the time it is mounted
| on wheels and has a truck in front of it, how long is it then?
| An additional 80' seems long for just the truck, but this
| doesn't seem like it'll be a normal cab over tractor type truck
| mperham wrote:
| Any insights on why this component cannot be subdivided into
| smaller pieces?
| mperham wrote:
| https://whatispiping.com/cold-box-cryogenic/
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Small price to pay for a massive regional economic engine!
| sneak wrote:
| So Intel is _literally_ too big to fail now?
|
| Maybe they can share offices with Boeing.
| ano-ther wrote:
| Where does it come from?
| azalemeth wrote:
| A fun little fact is that the load on a road causes damage
| roughly proportional to the fourth power of its mass - or at
| least, proportional to the fourth power of the weight of each
| axel. The US government publication detailing this is here -
| https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr61g/61g.pdf - in 1962
| - and it's become something of a famous approximation ever since.
| Keyframe wrote:
| That'd mean that a twice as heavy vehicle would cause 16 times
| more damage than the lighter one. Wild and not really
| intuitive!
| nerdponx wrote:
| And relevant for public policy, as both SUVs and EVs
| (including EV SUVs) become more common on roads.
| cameldrv wrote:
| Or not, because the axle weight of semi trucks are much
| higher than EVs, and due to the fourth power effect,
| essentially all road damage is caused by trucks.
| nerdponx wrote:
| But semi truck road usage is generally limited to certain
| kinds of roads and isn't broadly increasing.
|
| My point is that the effect of non-large vehicles getting
| heavier is magnified beyond what people might realize.
| david_shi wrote:
| Looks like the Mad Max Fury Road caravan
| ge96 wrote:
| New idiom unlocked
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I remember listening to a German podcast about this kind of
| transport. It's super interesting how much planning is needed
| before such a transport. Talk to different police departments,
| check weight limits of roads, corner radius, plan to disassemble
| some obstacles. Huge effort.
| topspin wrote:
| k-pound? Is that a thing? 458 tons, for someone's definition of a
| ton. It's important when using imperial lbs to use tons,
| otherwise we 'muricans can't easily convert it into medium duty
| trucks in our heads to visualize the mass. ~91 in this case.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-12 23:01 UTC)